This time around, I will attempt (as best I can) to be less strident in
my critique of the draft. I would like to thank the members of the
P&Z for working on this project. Donating your time and energy to the
P&Z is greatly appreciated.
I will limit my comments to the goals section of the draft because
I believe these to be the most important component of the draft. The policies
should flow from the goals which makes it extremely important to develop
a good set of goals.
----
We have the luxury of having representative views on growth and
development issues in Latah County at our fingertips. The 1994 U. of
Idaho study is not a perfect measure of Latah County residents nor is
it the final word on growth and development in Latah County. And yet,
it represents the single best source of objective information (thus far)
about how residents feel and about growth and development.
The area of impact should be managed according to the values of its
residents. If there is an objective truth out there, it lies in the informed
judgements of all area residents, not just those that choose to participate
(myself included) in the process.
What did we learn from the study? Latah County residents are concerned
about growth. They are most concerned about population growth, and
to a lesser extent, housing and business growth. More telling is what
residents say they would not like to see changed. The overwhelming
number one response was "population size and development growth"
followed by "small town atmosphere" and "rural character." The study
also told us that development should occur contiguous or inside the city.
These 2 findings are not neccessarily incomptabible. Growth should occur
contigous or inside the city limits, but this growth should be modest
(1% or less).
The critical question for developing a good draft for the area of
impact is whether the plan reflects the values of the residents who
will be impacted by it. Do the goals for the area of impact mesh
with the concerns and values as represented in the UI study?
For the most part, the draft is an "engineering" plan. It sets general
standards for development and never addresses the question of how much
development is appropriate. To the extent that development is orderly,
contiguous, and efficiently provides services, all such development
would be acceptable under the draft plan. The important value questions
of how much and where are never addressed. The importance of these
questions cannot be overstated. Uncontrolled growth provided that
engineering standards are met--is not the message that came out of the
UI study of residents (remember that 70% of the respondents were
Moscow residents).
Most good plans provide for a balance between conflicting value choices.
There is no balance in the plan because the essential conflict between
development and the preservation of rural, small-town values
(espoused by residents themselves as in the UI study) is avoided through
omission.
How do we deal with question of how much and where? Two options:
1) directly through an explicit growth limit goal, 2) an indirect
and measurable standard(s) that would achieve similar results. I
suggest that the plan incorporate both.
Goals:
Direct Approach:
1) Maintain the rural, small-town atmosphere of Moscow by limiting
development in the area of impact to an amount not to result in
greater than 1% annual population growth.
(This is logical extension of the values expressed in the UI study).
Indirect Approach:
1) Ensure that development in the area of impact is fully compliant
with both voluntary and legal water consumption requirements
established by the City of Moscow.
(Although indirect, this goal is much more restrictive than the
direct goal above because it forces local government to be
accountable for its actions. If we conserve enough water and meet
the goals, we can grow. If we cannot, we should have to live within
our means).
----
Other suggestions:
In lieu of Goal #9, I would like to see the following:
9) Identify and protect from development, lands in the area of impact
that have special significance (scenic/open space, biological,
or recreational) in addition to lands suitable for future parkland,
including possible linear parks along railroad corridors and Paradise
Creek.
(It is important that open space preserves
be designated first. A key planning principle is to design around
special places, not create special places after development. As stated
in the draft, goal #9 is too narrow and only describes potential
parkland, not core reserves that should be protected as open space.)
Finally (for now) I suggest striking the word "interim" in Goal #7.
The development bias of the draft is too obvious here.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Computer Services Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 885-2126 Fax: (208) 885-7539